Finding the Pits In CherryOS 494
An anonymous reader writes "DrunkenBlog is carrying a story with piles of gathered evidence (including screenshots of code diffs) exposing the speed claims of CherryOS, and that the company behind it (Maui X-Stream) is not only stealing code from the open source project PearPC but at least several other OSS projects too. There are some choice quotes from PearPC developers on how it is harming their project. They appear to have a strong case, but enforcing the GPL could take help."
If the court decides they should compensate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Steal or Copy? (Score:4, Interesting)
contact the EFF and the FSF? (Score:3, Interesting)
if I was a PearPC developer, I would.
this is blatant theft.
When is stealing IP justifiable? (Score:1, Interesting)
Not trying to be a troll, I'm genuinely curious to hear a well thought-out explanation. It often strikes me that I'm the only visitor who's not tone deaf.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:2, Interesting)
If anything else I'm sure that somewhere out there is a geek lawyer who wouldn't mind taking a shot at it if s/he could be reimburst for expenses.
Is Pear allowed to... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anonymous? (Score:3, Interesting)
Gee. I wonder who that could be [slashdot.org].
How to avoid their EULA (Score:3, Interesting)
On the Trial Download page [mxsinc.com], there are 5 checkboxes you "have" to agree to. If you don't check them, and click Download, it still lets you download with agreeing!
Google Bomb (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You know what's funny (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile the US government can arrest people without so much as opening an evidence bag.
Comparing two different things (Score:2, Interesting)
Answer: Neither is theft. The latter is considered copyright infringement. The former is copyleft infringement.
Think about it -- I was to understand the idea behind the GPL was specifically so that people COULD take the source, hack at it, and release something -- but that you had to continue to make the source available if you did. Compare to copyright, where the idea of sharing source at all is non-existant.
Maui-X-Stream (the people behind CherryOS, and a stupid name IMO) should not be sued to cease-and-desist. They should be sued to open up their source.
By all means, let this team of no-talent assclowns keep playing with the source -- they're allowed to anyway. And, in fact, let these dicks sell a distro -- so long as people have the choice between source code bases, even Joe Schmo's CVS build of the CherryOS "fork", that's fine.
But the biggest thing is that MXS is a bunch of stupid lying ass-grabbing money-grubbing bastards. I like how they used the term "never ever" when asked if they stole PearPC code. Sounds like they "never ever" grew out of elementary school.
Re:Why does CherryOS even bother? (Score:1, Interesting)
What they need is to get bitch-slapped by the PearPC developers and any other people they've stolen code from. If the GPL isn't enforced now, when the people infringing are amateur scum like this, then how will it be enforced when a big company tries a brazen ripoff of some project? Don't think this situation isn't being watched by potential infringers.
Re:Hypocrisy.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Right back at you: (Score:4, Interesting)
Your points would be valid if they weren't so automatically cynical.
No, Slashdot is for the freedom to do things without big corporations having the means or possible means down to breathe down everyone's back, or against laws that are contrary to fair use. Many slashdotters don't practice what they preach, but to treat all slashdotters as equally hypocritical is itself hypocritical, unless you yourself are hypocritical. In either case you are a hypocrite. Slashdot *would* be okay with the RIAA pursuing legal infringement if they weren't trying to sue for $150,000 per song (or something). Do you think that the PearPC would claim millions in damages to Maui X-Stream? Duh, no. P2P copyright infringement is not theft. Selling copyrighted materials is. Taking GPL code is not theft. Selling GPLed materials is.
You take three extreme examples and apply stereotypes to all three. BTW, saying "but it applies to the majority" and then talking about "ridiculous double standards" is also a double standard. Congrats on hanging yourself with your own rope, hypocrite.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not self-serving at all - at the heart of the GPL lies the power of copyright law. In court the plaintiff will say "Your Honour, Infringer A is distrbuting my copyrighted work without permission - make him stop please." Infringer A has two choices: a) admit copyright infringment and get fined or jail time OR b) say "I have a license to do so - the GPL." Either way, he loses. Moglen and Stallman knew exactly what they were doing when the GPL was crafted.
Re:contact the EFF and the FSF? (Score:3, Interesting)
This crime actually involves two seperate considerations:
1 CherryOS apparently is in violation of current copyright law.
1b. This violation aledgedly came about in part through breaking a contract (1 or more examples of the GPL). That's a civil matter, not a criminal one, so the GPL violations themselves definitely aren't theft in just about anyone's book.
2. In this particular case, the copyright violation was intended to lead to CherryOS getting paid money for someone else's work. That work was generally being given away, but with conditions. It is argueably worth money, and is being given away out of the goodness of the creator's hearts, rather than because it is worthless. Accepting the contract conditions was itself a form of payment that was also demonstratably worth money, simply because it costs many entities complying employee time and server space to make their own revisions avaiable. It can be argued reasonably that such type of profiting from other people's work without compensation is theft.
This is one perfect example of how copyright vioaltion by itself isn't theft. In this case, copyright violation was a tool that was used to attempt a theft. Contract violation was also a tool, but there are few people indeed arguing that all contract violations are criminal or, more particularly, the type of crime we call theft.
CherryOS could have violated a copyright on something without taking anything of real value. They could have used a 5 year old kid's refrigerator drawing without permission, and it could be widely apparent that no customer was buying their code because they wanted to get that drawing, and there would still be a technical violation of copyright.
CherryOS could have also tried to take the value of someone else's work by breaking a contract, without there being any copyright on the work involved. If CherryOS failed to pay the power company for electricty used, does there need to be a copyright on the electron flow before we call it theft? If copyright violation is theft, then we are essentially arguing that two thefts of the same item occurred, one by copyright violation, and the other by contract violation.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:1, Interesting)
That's because the FSF only bothers with "slamdunk" cases. As soon as you get into a gray area like the Linux nVidia driver, it turns out they'd really rather not risk it.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:1, Interesting)
Kinda like the RIAA cases. I Wonder why more of those don't go to court?
Re:The sad truth... (Score:3, Interesting)
In a typical RIAA displute, the RIAA has deep pockets and ample lawyers. They're bringing a case against some poor schmoe. The schmoe isn't really profiting from the infringement. But it's in the schmoe's best interest to settle.
In a typical GPL dispute, some poor schmoe like me brings a case against a company with comparitively deep pockets and ample lawyers. The company's profiting from their infringement. But it's in the company's best-interests to settle.
Trademark (Score:3, Interesting)